Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama

Review: 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' has that familiar feeling, maybe too much of it

As a result of trying too hard to maintain the original's insouciant attitude, what was fresh now seems institutionalized, what was off the wall now feels carved in stone and the film's trademark irreverence has become dogma. When the unruly Rocket asks wearily, "So, we're saving the galaxy again," the raccoon is being more truthful than he knows.

Last edited by verslibre on Sat May 06, 2017 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama

Review: 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' has that familiar feeling, maybe too much of it

As a result of trying too hard to maintain the original's insouciant attitude, what was fresh now seems institutionalized, what was off the wall now feels carved in stone and the film's trademark irreverence has become dogma. When the unruly Rocket asks wearily, "So, we're saving the galaxy again," the raccoon is being more truthful than he knows.

LOL....too funny. The first one wasn't "original" either...they just wrote a Farscape movie. Even Gunn admitted that other than ST:TNG, Farscape was the only scifi he watched. It's not original. It's good characters. It's good writing and story-telling. It's good choices of actors and acting ability...even voice acting. It's just a well made movie - all the way around. So, bring on "more of the same". DC fans like you should learn from it rather than look for negative reviews to post.

What I am getting from the reviews I have seen, and not cherry-picking good or bad ones like you, is a good part of the first half of the movie is "more of the same" and the second half dives deeper into a character driven story (like Farscape did) in a way the first never attempted. Even the previews show that the story is about "family", not just a bunch of a-holes in space (Red Dwarf).

Also, the original "a bunch of escaped prisoners take a joy ride in space and defy the powers that be." is actually originated by Blake's 7 in the late 70's. But, whatever.

Why ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Is Overrated – Especially When Compared to ‘Farscape’BY KAYTI BURT MAY 2, 2017

It’s hard to talk about the Guardians of the Galaxy movies without talking about generic context. When the first Guardians came out, its near universal acclaim was as much a celebration of the existence of a weird space adventure as it was a celebration of the movie itself. As Matt Goldberg wrote in his Collider review of the movie upon its release:

If anyone thinks Guardians is weird, it’s perhaps because we’ve become too straight-laced. Watching the film, I started to lament how Earthbound our blockbusters have become. Even when those blockbusters go into outer space, they must return to Earth.

Sure, Guardians of the Galaxy is fun, funny, and like cotton candy for your eyes, but the way some people talk about its inclusion in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and cinematic history in general, you’d think it was the second coming of Iron Man or Star Wars. I adore Groot (Baby and otherwise) as much as the next moviegoer, but Guardians (and I’m writing about the original movie) is more of a color-saturated footnote in cinematic history than it is its own chapter. This may be an unpopular opinion, but it is an overrated film that is not indicative of the best the genre has to offer.

A fair amount of my skepticism around Guardians’ MCU myth has to do with that fact that, unlike Iron Man or even Spider-Man before it, Guardians of the Galaxy is a concept that had been successfully executed on screen prior to Guardians. Yes, I’m talking about science fiction’s immensely undervalued muppet of a TV show, Farscape, which shares so many similarities with the Guardians of the Galaxy plot that they might be cousins. It’s also the perfect comparison to make when trying to parse why Guardians made such a splash when it is such a mediocre film. Let’s discuss…

Farscape Is a Much Better Guardians of the Galaxy Story

A Ken-doll of a nerd gets thrown into the other side of the universe where he meets and reluctantly teams up with a hodgepodge of weird, morally ambiguous, escaped prisoner aliens. Once there, he falls in love with a tough, stoic alien woman who was trained by the villains of the story, teaching her to express emotion and develop an identity outside of that of a warrior. There’s also a deep-voiced, often unintentionally hilarious Hulk of an alien; a plant-creature who is the most Zen of the lot; and a tiny, foul-mouthed alien who gets away with being kind of terrible because, in any other story, he would be the cuddly sidekick.

Did you think I just described the plot of Guardians of the Galaxy? Nope. That was Farscape, and the epic tale of found family, a stereotypical white dude lead in over his head, and a protagonist group that don’t always make the “right” choices graced our television screens from 1999 to 2003. It was produced by the Jim Henson Company, which means it used a lot of practical affects (i.e. puppetry) to create believable alien characters at a time when computerized visual effects were only just figuring out how to pull off the same thing. (To put this in perspective: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and its fully-realized Gollum character came out in 2002, forever changing film history and what is possible on the screen.)

Like the gang in Guardians of the Galaxy, the Farscape aliens are a diverse, bizarre, and often self-interested bunch who manage to wrangle themselves into something like a crew due to necessity rather than choice. There’s romance! There’s action! There’s Crichton often being the most useless member of the crew, Peter Quill-style, as he struggles to understand the cultural quirks of various alien species! It’s Guardians of the Galaxy stretched out into four seasons, one TV movie, and various comics-worth of crazy storytelling that somehow manages to work due to the strength of the characters and writing.

Superhero Hype asked director James Gunn the question that much of the nerd internet had been asking. Did Farscape influence Guardians of the Galaxy? Gunn’s answer:

The only science fiction shows that I think I ever really watched were Farscape and Star Trek: The Next Generation … Yeah, I’m sure there’s influence there. I like that show.

Look, I’m not saying that any of these science fiction elements or storytelling tropes are original (#postmodernism). Heck, the Guardians of the Galaxy first debuted in the comics back in 1969. I am saying that, though Guardians is a hopeful step in the right direction, we need more adventure-based science fiction in our lives.

I am also saying that, when it comes to on-screen stories about a hodgepodge crew of aliens, one human dude, and plenty of adult humor and situations, Farscape is where it’s at. Throw a show like Firefly into the conversation, and you’ve got a pop culture touchstone that more people might be familiar with. The Joss Whedon darling, too, nailed the tonal balance of quippy and character-driven and it did it all in one season, showing what a TV show can do when it has a precise, inspired vision and some stellar writing to back it up.

Going into my initial viewing of Guardians of the Galaxy, I remember being particularly excited because of the praise I had read about the film’s strong character work. In this, I was disappointed. Witty one-liners are not the same as a character arc. Neither is being a raccoon. And, while I agree the Guardians of the Galaxy has some intriguing characters with the whispers of both backstory and future character development, it’s still no Farscape.

The Limits of a Shared-Universe Blockbuster vs TV

Crafting something as visually stunning and complex as Guardians of the Galaxy takes time and resources and a certain kind of vision. It is not, however, able to compete from a character perspective. Deep character study is a TV show’s game. As snarky and offbeat as the characters in Guardians of the Galaxy may be, they are far from competing with the nuanced, all-encompassing characterization that happens on TV shows like Farscape or Firefly.

This isn’t a failure of Guardians of the Galaxy (or necessarily a failure at all), so much as an indicator of the limitations of the blockbuster film form. A shared fictional universe movie — at least the kinds we have now — will never be able to reach the same character-driven heights as a well-made TV show. Not with the narrative elements the respective mediums prioritize, at least. There are narrative consequences to the oft-cited reality that film is generally a director’s medium and TV is the writer’s domain (however much that is changing). When comparing something like Guardians of the Galaxy with TV space adventures in the category of character, it’s not really a fair fight.

Thankfully, we don’t have to choose between big-budget popcorn science fiction and more serialized, long-form storytelling. We can have both, especially in this age of peak entertainment. Is there hope for more space adventure that hit the same narrative sweet spot Guardians is falling a bit short of? There are some that are coming close – Syfy’s Killjoys on TV, and possibly Valerian in the movie realm. Regarding the latter, Luc Besson has been a fan of those comics since he was 10 years old, but only decided to make the movie after seeing James Cameron’s Avatar. The technology evolved and he knew he wanted to push it further to bring his vision to life. As he put it to Screen Rant:

I always dreamed to do it. But for a long time, I thought it would be impossible to do. Too many aliens, just impossible. Then Avatar came, and suddenly, we start to think, “okay,” thanks to Jim, now we can do it.

That’s the kind of innovation and ambition I like from my big screen space adventures. If a film can’t match up to a TV series’ ability to craft character and relationships, then it needs to bring something else to the table. World-building through cinematic spectacle is a good place to start. Guardians is a more than competent visual action adventure, but something like Valerian feels worthy of the imaginative genre from which it springs.

Guardian’s Legacy

I’ve said plenty about what Guardians of the Galaxy isn’t — a side effect of trying to create some more balance in the pop culture myth that surrounds this show — but not as much about what Guardians *is.* Though I think the hubbub around Guardians’ irreverent weirdness is overstated, I don’t think its affect on the MCU is. All you have to do is watch the Thor: Ragnarok trailer to see the tonal shift Marvel has encouraged, no doubt due to Guardians’ box office success. As the MCU continues to expand and age, this kind of tonal experimentation will likely be a welcome diversity from other corners of the shared fictional universe.

Guardians of the Galaxy might not have its own chapter in the story of on-screen science fiction, but it’s far from a footnote when it comes to the enduring story of the MCU. And that’s not half bad for a bunch of A-holes.

Monker wrote: Even Gunn admitted that other than ST:TNG, Farscape was the only scifi he watched.

I missed Gunn saying this. However, the parallels between Farscape and Guardians have been obvious from the start. At least Crichton came from modern times so it made sense that he would be up-to-date with pop cultural and scatological references. StarLord, on the other hand, was abducted as a child and grew up in a distant galaxy. Doesn't make any sense why every line out of his mouth is some forced witticism ("dance off bro?"). I thought Guardians 1 was pretty lame tbh.

As a aside, SyFy is incompetent. They cancelled Sliders to afford Farscape then they cancelled Farscape to afford Battlestar Galactica....etc etc. I've never seen so many shows start with sizable ratings and driven into the ground (Invisible Man, GvsE..etc).

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

I'm actually shocked how many people are talking smack on GoTG2, especially since Gunn wedged his entire body on the humor pedal and extravagant; colorful action. Most are saying the story is lacking and the humor feels unbalanced. I thought for sure this film would settle atleast in the mid 90's on RT and open at the BO at its highest 160+ mil projections. It could dip into the 70's on RT and the BO opening looks to be in the 138-140+ range, which is good but not what most were expecting. I thought for sure, givin' the hype and over-predictions, that GoTG2 would hit 1 bil. Not sure about that now but it's still big.

Review: 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' has that familiar feeling, maybe too much of it

As a result of trying too hard to maintain the original's insouciant attitude, what was fresh now seems institutionalized, what was off the wall now feels carved in stone and the film's trademark irreverence has become dogma. When the unruly Rocket asks wearily, "So, we're saving the galaxy again," the raccoon is being more truthful than he knows.

LOL....too funny. The first one wasn't "original" either...they just wrote a Farscape movie. Even Gunn admitted that other than ST:TNG, Farscape was the only scifi he watched. It's not original. It's good characters. It's good writing and story-telling. It's good choices of actors and acting ability...even voice acting. It's just a well made movie - all the way around. So, bring on "more of the same". DC fans like you should learn from it rather than look for negative reviews to post.

You obviously didn't read the review. The movie gets the job done, but the review's in line with what I'm hearing on other message boards: great VFX (again), corny soundtrack, forced humor, great action. The consensus: not as good as the first one.

Monker wrote:What I am getting from the reviews I have seen, and not cherry-picking good or bad ones like you, is a good part of the first half of the movie is "more of the same" and the second half dives deeper into a character driven story (like Farscape did) in a way the first never attempted. Even the previews show that the story is about "family", not just a bunch of a-holes in space (Red Dwarf).

Also, the original "a bunch of escaped prisoners take a joy ride in space and defy the powers that be." is actually originated by Blake's 7 in the late 70's. But, whatever.

I didn't cherry-pick anything. I read the LA Times, and that's Kenneth Turan's review. Read it. He doesn't trash the movie. But he does call 'em like he sees 'em.

And yeah, I know you love Farscape, but the Guardians movies are based on Marvel's 2008 reboot. Gunn added, subtracted and divided till he got the movies as audiences know them now.

Guardians of the Galaxy is every bit as quirky and entertaining as I could have hoped. The lineup, which includes Conquest faves like Warlock, Quasar, Drax, Gamora, and Star-Lord's crew, is is one of the greatest assembled in years. The issue starts off annoyingly slow (which is odd considering it's all action), but once the personalities start to clash I was immediately hooked.

This group does not resemble the original 70s GotG. In fact, Star-Lord (Peter Quill) wasn't even a member, let alone the unlikely leader of a "ragtag" group. That little cute Groot weed-thing everyone loves was initially a 50s/60s-style monster. Star-Lord's creator Steve Englehart never wrote him as a goofball. I prefer the character of those original b&w stories in the mid-70s to Pratt's portrayal. All the post-Englehart stories tweak the character more and more. Fun fact: in the comics, Quill's mother is killed by Badoon sentries. (The Badoon are an alien race who are tied up at Fox because they're Fantastic Four villains.) Peter later ends up in an orphanage and joins NASA before ever meeting Yondu and the Ravagers.

Three years ago, Quill/Star-Lord he got a suit that matches the movie version.

Speaking of Valerian, I'm looking forward to that one. The graphic novels are cool. Lucas borrowed elements of the Valerian stories for Star Wars. I'm confident it will be a good movie. I just don't think it's going to go over too well here.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:I'm actually shocked how many people are talking smack on GoTG2, especially since Gunn wedged his entire body on the humor pedal and extravagant; colorful action. Most are saying the story is lacking and the humor feels unbalanced. I thought for sure this film would settle atleast in the mid 90's on RT and open at the BO at its highest 160+ mil projections. It could dip into the 70's on RT and the BO opening looks to be in the 138-140+ range, which is good but not what most were expecting. I thought for sure, givin' the hype and over-predictions, that GoTG2 would hit 1 bil. Not sure about that now but it's still big.

I don't think the big 1B is in its future, but it'll make money. It's got no real competition for two weeks.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:At least Crichton came from modern times so it made sense that he would be up-to-date with pop cultural and scatological references. StarLord, on the other hand, was abducted as a child and grew up in a distant galaxy. Doesn't make any sense why every line out of his mouth is some forced witticism ("dance off bro?"). I thought Guardians 1 was pretty lame tbh.

I hate that "Dance-off, bro!" shit. Not sure why everyone loves it. And yes, it's not like the mixtape had selections from 70s albums by Richard Pryor and George Carlin inserted between all the songs.

Think I liked Vol. 2 better. Have to give the first one another watch to be sure.

Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama

The_Noble_Cause wrote:At least Crichton came from modern times so it made sense that he would be up-to-date with pop cultural and scatological references.

Crichton did not make "modern" references. His references were almost always pointed to classic and OLD references. I can't think of anything from the late 90's. Everything was older, "Let's get the band back together." "I'm not Kirk, Spock, Buck, or Arthur frelling Dent...I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas." And, some were even a bit hidden: "Well, other than being shot at by the Electric Mayhem...." "Enough with the Luxan poetry." Even Harvey is a reference to the pooka in the movie "Harvey". I could go on and on...but, it's not "modern".

As a aside, SyFy is incompetent. They cancelled Sliders to afford Farscape

First of all, I LOVED Sliders. But, Sliders was DEAD after season 5. The show had no reason to exist. The ONLY original was Rembrandt. What they did to Wade was horrible. Professor, dead. There was really no reason for the show to continue.

The mistake Scifi made with Sliders was making it an alien show about Kromaggs instead of an alternate history show. They made changes in writers and producers, too. THAT is what caused both John-Rhys Davies and Sabrina Lloyd to leave. They screwed with the entire premise of the show - and THAT killed it. It was ready to be pulled after season 4, really. Season 5 may have had OK ratings, but the writing and story arc was not there...and it was painful to watch compared to seasons 1-2, and even 3 was more fun despite things starting to fall apart. Season 1-2 of Sliders is scifi that everybody should watch.

then they cancelled Farscape to afford Battlestar Galactica....etc etc.

I am not sure if that is completely true. I read various things at that time. BSG and Farscape coexisted for a while. Stargate seemed to be EVERYWHERE on SciFi at that time. And, they had to have some money from Lexx removing themselves...which was also a show ready to end.

RedWingFan wrote:Think I liked Vol. 2 better. Have to give the first one another watch to be sure.

For me, they are about the same. Vol 2 had a different focus than Vol 1. Vol 1 was all about introducing the main characters and setting the vibe and such. Vol. 2 continues that vibe, of course. But, it is has a LOT of character development. Anybody who says it doesn't is either lying or doesn't know what they are talking about. As I said, the entire theme of the movie is about "family" and exploring various facets of what a family is and isn't. It all adds a lot more depth to the characters. The addition of Mantis was a brilliant move as she brings out more character in Drax than any of the others. Baby Groot has his scenes, but Mantis/Drax have the best scenes. Yondu's story was perfect. I knew Ben Browder was cast but he had a bit more screen time than I thought he would...great to see Gunn giving such a gesture to Farscape by casting him.

And, BTW, for all your whining about the original comic Guardians, they are all there...either in the movie or in the post-credits bits. Gunn has talked about putting that team together...and Guardians 4 is to have a new cast. This Star-Lord version was always meant to be a trilogy.

Monker wrote:And, BTW, for all your whining about the original comic Guardians, they are all there...either in the movie or in the post-credits bits. Gunn has talked about putting that team together...and Guardians 4 is to have a new cast.

What whining? Chill. I merely intoned I don't like what Marvel's been doing with the characters since 2008. But since you never read the Englehart and Byrne Star-Lord stories, I don't expect you to understand. It's got nothing to do with what they're doing in the movies.

FWIW, here's the original GotG. From L-R: Vance Astro, Charlie-27, Matinex T-Naga, and yes, that's Yondu, before he was colored blue.

Each is the last of their kind and they are forced to come together as a team against the Badoon, an alien race who wants to rule Earths solar system. Over the course of the war against the Badoon, the team slowly grows to include new members such as Starhawk and Nikki, a genetically engineered being created to live on the planet Mercury. When they appear years later in their own title the team consists of several members which lead Martinex to create a second unit called the Galactic Guardians to work along side the original team.

The most well-known version of the team and the one that the feature film is based on is the modern Guardians of the Galaxy who first appeared in May 2008. Created by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning, the new team is formed of existing characters from the Annihilation storyline with an initial roster of Star-Lord, Adam Warlock, Gamora, Drax the Destroyer, Quasar and the two most popular characters the gun toting Rocket Raccoon and the sentient tree Groot.

Monker wrote:And, BTW, for all your whining about the original comic Guardians, they are all there...either in the movie or in the post-credits bits. Gunn has talked about putting that team together...and Guardians 4 is to have a new cast.

What whining? Chill. I merely intoned I don't like what Marvel's been doing with the characters since 2008. But since you never read the Englehart and Byrne Star-Lord stories, I don't expect you to understand. It's got nothing to do with what they're doing in the movies.

Yeah, you can't accept the fact that these are not the comics, but the movies. They don't have to follow the comics.

FWIW, here's the original GotG. From L-R: Vance Astro, Charlie-27, Matinex T-Naga, and yes, that's Yondu, before he was colored blue.

And, here are the roles as they are cast for the post credit scene...where Starhawk says they need to reunite.

Monker wrote:This Star-Lord version was always meant to be a trilogy.

Bullshit.

So, you either did not read any of the many articles last month, or you believe Gunn is a liar:

“I think really that the three movies work together as a whole, they’re going to tell one story,” Gunn told EW at the premiere of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. “This is the story of this iteration of the Guardians of the Galaxy, and we’re going to get to know the characters even better in the same way we got to know them much better in this film than the first one.”

He added, “I wouldn’t have said yes if I didn’t have a fairly clear idea of where we were going and what we were going to do. I’m not a guy that’s just going to do it if I don’t have a vision for it. So, I’m very excited.”

In other interviews I read, Gunn implies there is a deeper reason that the current Guardians were brought together for. Perhaps it was to prompt the creation of Adam Warlock - who may have the final Infinity Stone - the soul stone, or to motivate Star Hawk to bring the original Guardians together...perhaps both. But, whatever...Gunn planned this as a trilogy to tell the story of this one group of Guardians.

Monker wrote:And, BTW, for all your whining about the original comic Guardians, they are all there...either in the movie or in the post-credits bits. Gunn has talked about putting that team together...and Guardians 4 is to have a new cast.

What whining? Chill. I merely intoned I don't like what Marvel's been doing with the characters since 2008. But since you never read the Englehart and Byrne Star-Lord stories, I don't expect you to understand. It's got nothing to do with what they're doing in the movies.

Yeah, you can't accept the fact that these are not the comics, but the movies. They don't have to follow the comics.

Dude, you have to stop being so hardheaded. I have already said the movies are based on the comic from 2008-forward, and I don't like what they're doing.

You like the movies as they are, so you don't care what existed before 2014. The end.

Monker wrote:And, here are the roles as they are cast for the post credit scene...where Starhawk says they need to reunite.

Stallone was a horrible choice. They're just handing out roles to actors they like for the novelty. Actually, I don't get any of those choices — and I say that as a Yeoh fan!

Monker wrote:So, you either did not read any of the many articles last month, or you believe Gunn is a liar

I doubt there were any hard plans for a "trilogy" beyond "possibilities" sketched out on a notepad. "You know, if we ever do a second, we can do this, maybe..."

Why is that so hard to believe? Gunn's a guy who wrote and directed B-movies before getting the gig. Slither was the biggest thing he'd done.

Last edited by verslibre on Wed May 10, 2017 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Monker wrote:Crichton did not make "modern" references. His references were almost always pointed to classic and OLD references. I can't think of anything from the late 90's. Everything was older, "Let's get the band back together." "I'm not Kirk, Spock, Buck, or Arthur frelling Dent...I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas." And, some were even a bit hidden: "Well, other than being shot at by the Electric Mayhem...." "Enough with the Luxan poetry." Even Harvey is a reference to the pooka in the movie "Harvey". I could go on and on...but, it's not "modern".

To me, Crichton was a self-deprecating wiseass always invoking pop culture. Even his gun was named after Winona Ryder. This scene below is a perfect example. Browder admittedly ad-libbed much of these quips. The point is, it makes sense for his character to say these things because he grew up on earth. Star Lord did not. Star Lord was abducted as a child.

Monker wrote:First of all, I LOVED Sliders. But, Sliders was DEAD after season 5. The show had no reason to exist. The ONLY original was Rembrandt. What they did to Wade was horrible. Professor, dead. There was really no reason for the show to continue.

It all comes back to the writing. I thought showrunner, Keith Damron, did a really good job with what he had to work with in the final season. Jerry O'Connell wanted out (or more money) so they pulled a Dr. Who and had Quinn merge with his alternate in a vortex experiment. Yes, admittedly alot of the SyFy era was crap. As I'm sure you know, when SyFy bought the show (back when the channel was still SciFi) they had the option of hiring the original Sliders creator Tracy Torme or the keeping the empty Fox suit, David Peckinpah. They went with Peckinpah. It's a shame because Tracy would have brought back John Rhys Davies and course-corrected the show. Peckinpah already oversaw the destruction of the show on Fox.

Monker wrote:The mistake Scifi made with Sliders was making it an alien show about Kromaggs instead of an alternate history show. They made changes in writers and producers, too. THAT is what caused both John-Rhys Davies and Sabrina Lloyd to leave. They screwed with the entire premise of the show - and THAT killed it. It was ready to be pulled after season 4, really. Season 5 may have had OK ratings, but the writing and story arc was not there...and it was painful to watch compared to seasons 1-2, and even 3 was more fun despite things starting to fall apart. Season 1-2 of Sliders is scifi that everybody should watch.

The Season 4 episodes written by Marc Scott Zicree and a few spec-written episodes were good. Zicree was friends with fired Sliders creator, Tracy Torme and tried to guide the show as best he could. Otherwise, I agree 100%. Season 5 ditched most of the Kromagg storyline. I think there were some really strong episodes in Season 5.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

(At least it was a matinée.)

Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.

WTF are people jizzing over? If the movie concluded with a tits-out lesbian orgy between Gamora, Mantis, Nebula and the gold-skinned bitch Ayesha, maybe I'd have found something to enjoy.

I can't believe how bad the dialogue and the jokes in this sucker are. I mean BAD. Not "so bad, they're good"...I mean BAD. And that fucking exaggerated laughter Drax busts out in every 15 minutes is supposed to be hilarious? I wanted a starcraft to fall on his nutsack! Gunn dug deep into his coffers for his old junior high school jokes, and came up with "Scrotum-hat"!

The entire opening sequence is stupid. From then on, the movie is one predictable real-time narrative, with a completely predictable death and resolution (ka-boom). Not to mention the messages Gunn beats you over the head with: "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" "You're better than that!" "You're beautiful on the inside!" "It's about FAMILY! We're family!" There is nothing subtle about this film. It's pie-in-face all the way, especially with all references to retro bullshit.

I about LOL'd when I saw the "Sovereign": instead of a cool effect, they went econo and spray-painted a bunch of actors to look like the "m@ster r@ce" landed on another planet. Think old Star Trek!

(Don't even get me started on that little sentient twig. I wanna squirt him with lighter fluid and...Whooooosh!)

This movie has quite a few utilizations of slo-mo, too. Why are people complaining about the slo-mo in the WW trailer and not the slo-mo in this movie?

verslibre wrote:Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

(At least it was a matinée.)

Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.

WTF are people jizzing over? If the movie concluded with a tits-out lesbian orgy between Gamora, Mantis, Nebula and the gold-skinned bitch Ayesha, maybe I'd have found something to enjoy.

I can't believe how bad the dialogue and the jokes in this sucker are. I mean BAD. Not "so bad, they're good"...I mean BAD. And that fucking exaggerated laughter Drax busts out in every 15 minutes is supposed to be hilarious? I wanted a starcraft to fall on his nutsack! Gunn dug deep into his coffers for his old junior high school jokes, and came up with "Scrotum-hat"!

The entire opening sequence is stupid. From then on, the movie is one predictable real-time narrative, with a completely predictable death and resolution (ka-boom). Not to mention the messages Gunn beats you over the head with: "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" "You're better than that!" "You're beautiful on the inside!" "It's about FAMILY! We're family!" There is nothing subtle about this film. It's pie-in-face all the way, especially with all references to retro bullshit.

I about LOL'd when I saw the "Sovereign": instead of a cool effect, they went econo and spray-painted a bunch of actors to look like the "m@ster r@ce" landed on another planet. Think old Star Trek!

(Don't even get me started on that little sentient twig. I wanna squirt him with lighter fluid and...Whooooosh!)

This movie has quite a few utilizations of slo-mo, too. Why are people complaining about the slo-mo in the WW trailer and not the slo-mo in this movie?

The post-credits scenes all sucked, too! A first!!!

Save your money!

Thanks for the review. The humor in the first one didn't strike me as witty or funny either.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

verslibre wrote:Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

(At least it was a matinée.)

Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.

WTF are people jizzing over?

Hillarious. Not too long ago, you two were saying how critics were giving mediocre reviews and that the movie was obviously not as good as the first.

But, of course, that was before it was actually released and before the FANS gave it a 90 on RT. Now, people are "jizzing over" it.

I find it a huge heaping mound of jealousy you are expressing here.

Let me put it in perspective for you. In the other thread you celebrated that BvS entered the top 50 best selling Blu-Rays of all time. Well, Disney owns 7 of the top 10....Including Avengers and....the first GotG. DISNEY knows how to make films that people want to see, and see again, and again, and go and buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray. Thus far, DC seems content to make movies destined to be "cult classics"...aimed at a very specific DC comic book audience. WW may change that...but history does not seem to indicate that.

And, now, Disney will probably have the top two best selling movies of the summer, if not the entire year with GotG:v2 and Beauty and the Beast. Oh, yeah, can't forget SW:ep8....the top 3 best selling movies of the year. WW is not going to come close. And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform.

Ironically, people are invested in the GotG characters and the movies themselves are part of pop culture...the type of thing Quill sorta mocks. People care about the characters beyond the superficial level that you do. Ironically, or perhaps not, most of the things you complain about are things you complained they - both Marvel and GotG - were not doing. There were consequences where an important character died. They gave the characters more depth by exploring their relationships all within a "family" context. You complained about "You are beautiful, on the inside." But, you leave out the entire story line of Drax saying Mantis was ugly...but, that is good because if someone loves you then you know it is for who you are on the inside. So, at the end he says she's, "beautiful >pause< , on the inside".

And, "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" To me, that was taken directly from Farscape - and Farscape did it better. Aeryn Sun: It's my duty, it's my breeding since birth. It's what I am.John Crichton: You can be more.

See, that is the difference between having a well defined character and a character who is grumpy because he's old and tired of doing the same old vigilante bullshit. But, of course you would rather have the one-dimensional character of Batman, because, hey, he's Batman and we already know his character. This is why the DC movies thus far have been critiqued to death while Marvel keeps cranking out hits that are well received by everybody.

I don't know where this idea came from that what is in GotG2 was "settle". I do not see how anything in the movie was meant to be taken as being "settle".

verslibre wrote:Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

(At least it was a matinée.)

Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.

WTF are people jizzing over? If the movie concluded with a tits-out lesbian orgy between Gamora, Mantis, Nebula and the gold-skinned bitch Ayesha, maybe I'd have found something to enjoy.

I can't believe how bad the dialogue and the jokes in this sucker are. I mean BAD. Not "so bad, they're good"...I mean BAD. And that fucking exaggerated laughter Drax busts out in every 15 minutes is supposed to be hilarious? I wanted a starcraft to fall on his nutsack! Gunn dug deep into his coffers for his old junior high school jokes, and came up with "Scrotum-hat"!

The entire opening sequence is stupid. From then on, the movie is one predictable real-time narrative, with a completely predictable death and resolution (ka-boom). Not to mention the messages Gunn beats you over the head with: "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" "You're better than that!" "You're beautiful on the inside!" "It's about FAMILY! We're family!" There is nothing subtle about this film. It's pie-in-face all the way, especially with all references to retro bullshit.

I about LOL'd when I saw the "Sovereign": instead of a cool effect, they went econo and spray-painted a bunch of actors to look like the "m@ster r@ce" landed on another planet. Think old Star Trek!

(Don't even get me started on that little sentient twig. I wanna squirt him with lighter fluid and...Whooooosh!)

This movie has quite a few utilizations of slo-mo, too. Why are people complaining about the slo-mo in the WW trailer and not the slo-mo in this movie?

The post-credits scenes all sucked, too! A first!!!

Save your money!

DC word count:1

Hillarious. Not too long ago, you two were saying how critics were giving mediocre reviews and that the movie was obviously not as good as the first.

But, of course, that was before it was actually released and before the FANS gave it a 90 on RT. Now, people are "jizzing over" it.

I find it a huge heaping mound of jealousy you are expressing here.

Let me put it in perspective for you. In the other thread you celebrated that BvS entered the top 50 best selling Blu-Rays of all time. Well, Disney owns 7 of the top 10....Including Avengers and....the first GotG. DISNEY knows how to make films that people want to see, and see again, and again, and go and buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray. Thus far, DC seems content to make movies destined to be "cult classics"...aimed at a very specific DC comic book audience. WW may change that...but history does not seem to indicate that.

And, now, Disney will probably have the top two best selling movies of the summer, if not the entire year with GotG:v2 and Beauty and the Beast. Oh, yeah, can't forget SW:ep8....the top 3 best selling movies of the year. WW is not going to come close. And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform.

Ironically, people are invested in the GotG characters and the movies themselves are part of pop culture...the type of thing Quill sorta mocks. People care about the characters beyond the superficial level that you do. Ironically, or perhaps not, most of the things you complain about are things you complained they - both Marvel and GotG - were not doing. There were consequences where an important character died. They gave the characters more depth by exploring their relationships all within a "family" context. You complained about "You are beautiful, on the inside." But, you leave out the entire story line of Drax saying Mantis was ugly...but, that is good because if someone loves you then you know it is for who you are on the inside. So, at the end he says she's, "beautiful >pause< , on the inside".

And, "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" To me, that was taken directly from Farscape - and Farscape did it better. Aeryn Sun: It's my duty, it's my breeding since birth. It's what I am.John Crichton: You can be more.

See, that is the difference between having a well defined character and a character who is grumpy because he's old and tired of doing the same old vigilante bullshit. But, of course you would rather have the one-dimensional character of Batman, because, hey, he's Batman and we already know his character. This is why the DC movies thus far have been critiqued to death while Marvel keeps cranking out hits that are well received by everybody.

I don't know where this idea came from that what is in GotG2 was "settle". I do not see how anything in the movie was meant to be taken as being "settle".

verslibre wrote:Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

(At least it was a matinée.)

Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.

WTF are people jizzing over?

Hillarious. Not too long ago, you two were saying how critics were giving mediocre reviews and that the movie was obviously not as good as the first.

But, of course, that was before it was actually released and before the FANS gave it a 90 on RT. Now, people are "jizzing over" it.

It wasn't a 90 on RT. It was 100%. One hundred, baby. And I don't get that, either. People are clearly afraid to talk down Marvel. Proof: all the IMDb reviews that exclaim: Better than the first! Amazing! Marvel does it again! Gunn is the Messiah! And so on. It's ridiculous. I went in with a completely open mind, and the movie sucked. Then I watched the first GOTG again. Now I like that movie, warts and all. Gunn tried to build a bigger bonfire and burned the whole joint down. Ronan shouldn't be a bigger threat than something like Ego (and technically he is not), but he was the source of much pain and anguish to those who crossed him. Ego came off like an entity trying on shoes and finally finding the pair that fit.

And yeah, the consensus was "not as good as the first." But that didn't stop more reviews from bursting the floodgates, as they did last week.

Monker wrote:I find it a huge heaping mound of jealousy you are expressing here.

Oh, for crying out loud. DId you actually watch this movie, or are you reading spoiler-laden reviews again as you did with Civil War?

Monker wrote:Let me put it in perspective for you. In the other thread you celebrated that BvS entered the top 50 best selling Blu-Rays of all time.

Which has nothing to do with my thoughts on GotGVol2.

Monker wrote:Well, Disney owns 7 of the top 10....Including Avengers and....the first GotG. DISNEY knows how to dumb movies dumb so that the sheep flock to them again, and again, and go and buy 'em on DVD/Blu-Ray. Thus far, DC seems content to make movies destined to be "cult classics"...aimed at a very specific DC comic book audience. WW may change that...but history does not seem to indicate that.

Fixed. It's wunnerful that you're carrying the torch for Disney. Do you think The Force Awakens was a masterwork? (Not as good as the original!) Now that movie grossed over 2B, but that doesn't mean it's an extraordinary film. The writing/plotting/characterization suffered, and it's because Disney wanted a story that hit all the same beats as '77 to maximize their profit margins. Rogue One didn't make as much because the only major Jedi presence in it is Vader, but the One Big [Fan Service] Moment at the end > all the Fan Service in TFA combined.

Monker wrote:And, now, Disney will probably have the top two best selling movies of the summer, if not the entire year with GotG:v2 and Beauty and the Beast. Oh, yeah, can't forget SW:ep8....the top 3 best selling movies of the year. WW is not going to come close. And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform.

Don't take my review of GotG2 so personally. You didn't ghostwrite it for Gunny, did you?

Monker wrote:Ironically, people are invested in the GotG characters and the movies themselves are part of pop culture...the type of thing Quill sorta mocks. People care about the characters beyond the superficial level that you do. Ironically, or perhaps not, most of the things you complain about are things you complained they - both Marvel and GotG - were not doing. There were consequences where an important character died. They gave the characters more depth by exploring their relationships all within a "family" context. You complained about "You are beautiful, on the inside." But, you leave out the entire story line of Drax saying Mantis was ugly...but, that is good because if someone loves you then you know it is for who you are on the inside. So, at the end he says she's, "beautiful >pause< , on the inside".

Except way before that, Gamora tells Mantis she's not ugly, after Mantis tells her she's ugly because Drax told her so. Again: did you watch the movie, or are you just reading up on stuff?

People like silly and cute shit, like Baby Groot. They took the marginally annoying stuff of the first film and turned them up to 11 for the 10-year-olds. It's a goofy movie for kids. That's why Ego the LIVING PLANET didn't compress his entire core and just smush them all down into fertilizer, not to mention they're having an entire conversation about "tape" WHILE flying around inside a closed environment dodging drone blaster-bolts. That's why you have "Daddy Ego" and "Son Petey" playing catch with a ball of energy. It's supposed to make you go Awww.... (I went "Aw, shit, I could've hit the concession stand.")

Monker wrote:And, "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" To me, that was taken directly from Farscape - and Farscape did it better.

I don't doubt that for one second. It was so ham-fisted in GOTG2, I wanted a Reuben (because I'm not into ham).

Monker wrote:See, that is the difference between having a well defined character and a character who is grumpy because he's old and tired of doing the same old vigilante bullshit. But, of course you would rather have the one-dimensional character of Batman, because, hey, he's Batman and we already know his character. This is why the DC movies thus far have been critiqued to death while Marvel keeps cranking out hits that are well received by everybody.

One-dimensional? Did somebody tell you that? Because the following persons disagree with you, and they're all creators who have worked on Batman:

Bill Finger (co-creator)Bob Kane (co-creator)Frank Miller (some guy whose effect on the character is being felt to this day)Denny O'Neil (great writer who later worked on Daredevil after Frank Miller left to do The Dark Knight Returns)Steve Englehart (wrote a lot of great Batman stories in the '70s & '80s)Doug Moench (writer; this guy's awesome)Dick Giordano (artist, and ditto)Marv Wolfman (one of my favorite writers)Alan Moore (who?)Neal Adams (celebrated artist and writer, this guy is his own f-ing institution in comics)Chuck Dixon (wrote a bunch of issues in the Knightfall storyline — as in Bane and Azrael)Alan Grant (ditto)Grant Morrison (should be a familiar name)Jeph Loeb (wrote The Long Halloween and Dark Victory storylines beloved by fandom) Tim Sale (^the guy who drew 'em!)Scott Snyder (New 52 Batman writer who enjoyed an acclaimed run and brought us the Court of Owls storyline)Greg Capullo (^the guy who drew the stories Snyder wrote!)Matt Reeves (some dude who's going to direct a Batman movie)Christopher Nolan (who?)Jonathan Nolan (who?)Ben Affleck (life-long Batfan who's now the man in the cowl on the big screen)Zack Snyder (never heard of him!)Kevin Smith (total loser!)

But wait, why are you contradicting yourself by saying Batman is one-dimensional? A one-dimensional character wouldn't need to be reintroduced into the DCEU. You know, the way you said he needed to be, because audiences don't know "this" Batman, because he must be green and ride an orange camel, while the guy from the Nolan movies wore a black suit and drove something called the Tumbler.

verslibre wrote: But wait, why are you contradicting yourself by saying Batman is one-dimensional? A one-dimensional character wouldn't need to be reintroduced into the DCEU. You know, the way you said he needed to be, because audiences don't know "this" Batman, because he must be green and ride an orange camel, while the guy from the Nolan movies wore a black suit and drove something called the Tumbler.

B-I-N-G-O! Right on, as usual. First off, Batman is the FURTHEST character from being one dimensional (Affleck's Batman was so unlike ANY big screen Batman that came before him, that fans unsurprisingly brought out the "but..but..but BATMAN would never do that! Not mah Batman!" ala Superman in Man of Steel. Second, Monker blabbered and flung spit through the gap of his two front teeth before BvS about how Affleck's Batman wouldn't take because he didn't have 5 solo films for the audience to "get to know him" like so many Marvel fans seemingly need (but that's what has come to expect with a crowd where 90% is made up of 10 year olds). Now that this is a new conversation where the goalposts are ripe to be moved, all of a sudden, in Monker logic, Batman is Batman and we "all know who this one dimensional Batman is" when that's what we argued (to him) for pages at a time in the DCEU thread that Batman DOESN'T need to be spoon fed to audiences because he's fucking BATMAN (even TNC sided with us in that particular portion of the debate.) The Marvel drone-boy, can't say no wrong about the MCU-or-else delusion continues. Never have I seen a fanbase so sensitive, even in the midst of all the accolades. Win an Oscar first, then we'll talk!

verslibre wrote:It wasn't a 90 on RT. It was 100%. One hundred, baby. And I don't get that, either. People are clearly afraid to talk down Marvel. Proof: all the IMDb reviews that exclaim: Better than the first! Amazing! Marvel does it again! Gunn is the Messiah! And so on. It's ridiculous.

IMO, a lot of that is a backlash against DC fans talking down Marvel films. It did not matter if I went to a YouTube of the latest trailer or review, or a web review that allowed comments. There were ALWAYS DC fans there saying exactly what you do - that the consensus is blah, blah, blah and so it is not as good as the first. To me, it seems like both sides have groups of "fans" talking smack and trying to boost and lower ratings depending on what side they are on.

I went in with a completely open mind, and the movie sucked.

"Suck" is such a lame generic critique. But, if that is what you want to believe, fine - believe it.

Then I watched the first GOTG again. Now I like that movie, warts and all. Gunn tried to build a bigger bonfire and burned the whole joint down. Ronan shouldn't be a bigger threat than something like Ego (and technically he is not), but he was the source of much pain and anguish to those who crossed him. Ego came off like an entity trying on shoes and finally finding the pair that fit.

You are totally missing the point in both movies, or at least Vol 2. Ronan was the stereotypical villain in an origin story...both Starlord and the Guardians themselves. That is the role he played.

Ego was not just a simple villain . He was Peter Quill's dad...and that is why he was there. It brought a depth of character to Quill that the first movie did not. The same with Gamora and Nebula. It's one thing to be sisters who hate each other. It's another to explain the deep rooted hatred Nebula feels and let Gamora react to it. The same with Drax and Mantis. When Drax tells the story of his wife and Mantis touches him and feels his pain and cries...that deepens the understanding of Drax and provides a connection between Mantis and Drax that is deeper than what Drax has with any of the others.

So, Ego was there to add to Starlord's character - not just to be a bad guy. They throw the ball back and forth. They talk about girls. They do the "dad" things that Starlord says he missed. All to make it easier for Starlord to follow Ego. But, in the end, Yondu is his "daddy."

The entire story is about family, and loss of family. And, it is about growing the characters, not just saving the galaxy a second time.

Monker wrote:I find it a huge heaping mound of jealousy you are expressing here.

Oh, for crying out loud. DId you actually watch this movie, or are you reading spoiler-laden reviews again as you did with Civil War?

I saw CA:CW the weekend it was released....just as I did both GotG movies.

Monker wrote:Let me put it in perspective for you. In the other thread you celebrated that BvS entered the top 50 best selling Blu-Rays of all time.

Which has nothing to do with my thoughts on GotGVol2.

Yes, it does. You celebrate such things for DC but you refuse to acknowledge that Marvel is doing it better. GotG is a worldwide phenomenon while something like Suicide Squad is just a movie that had some success with it.

Monker wrote:Well, Disney owns 7 of the top 10....Including Avengers and....the first GotG. DISNEY knows how to dumb movies dumb so that the sheep flock to them again, and again, and go and buy 'em on DVD/Blu-Ray. Thus far, DC seems content to make movies destined to be "cult classics"...aimed at a very specific DC comic book audience. WW may change that...but history does not seem to indicate that.

Fixed.

And, there you go. Jealousy.

It's wunnerful that you're carrying the torch for Disney. Do you think The Force Awakens was a masterwork?

I think it was a fine movie that did everything it needed to do to pay homage to the original trilogy and put the prequels in the "you can forget these now" pile.

Now that movie grossed over 2B, but that doesn't mean it's an extraordinary film.

NO, it means that George Lucas dreamed up characters and told a story in such a way that drew people into a fandom that has lasted multiple generations now. It's an extraordinary character driven STORY.

[qote]Rogue One didn't make as much because the only major Jedi presence in it is Vader, but the One Big [Fan Service] Moment at the end > all the Fan Service in TFA combined. [/quote]

You are now just guessing and inventing facts. Rogue One was the SECOND of the new SW films. Rogue One did not have Han, Leia and Luke reunited in the same film. Rogue One is not part of the new trilogy. Rogue One did well despite all of these things being against it, IMO.

Monker wrote:And, now, Disney will probably have the top two best selling movies of the summer, if not the entire year with GotG:v2 and Beauty and the Beast. Oh, yeah, can't forget SW:ep8....the top 3 best selling movies of the year. WW is not going to come close. And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform.

Don't take my review of GotG2 so personally. You didn't ghostwrite it for Gunny, did you?

Monker wrote:Ironically, people are invested in the GotG characters and the movies themselves are part of pop culture...the type of thing Quill sorta mocks. People care about the characters beyond the superficial level that you do. Ironically, or perhaps not, most of the things you complain about are things you complained they - both Marvel and GotG - were not doing. There were consequences where an important character died. They gave the characters more depth by exploring their relationships all within a "family" context. You complained about "You are beautiful, on the inside." But, you leave out the entire story line of Drax saying Mantis was ugly...but, that is good because if someone loves you then you know it is for who you are on the inside. So, at the end he says she's, "beautiful >pause< , on the inside".

Except way before that, Gamora tells Mantis she's not ugly, after Mantis tells her she's ugly because Drax told her so. Again: did you watch the movie, or are you just reading up on stuff?

Yes, Gamora did say that....and it is probably something that could have been cut. What I am saying is that entire thread of dialogue deepens your understanding of both characters (Drax and Mantis). So, does Drax love Mantis? To be continued in Vol 3.

People like silly and cute shit, like Baby Groot.

So what? The intro was basically a parody of the intro to the first movie. Yeah, turned up to 11...but hilarious and perfect.

They took the marginally annoying stuff of the first film and turned them up to 11 for the 10-year-olds. It's a goofy movie for kids. That's why Ego the LIVING PLANET didn't compress his entire core and just smush them all down into fertilizer, not to mention they're having an entire conversation about "tape" WHILE flying around inside a closed environment dodging drone blaster-bolts. That's why you have "Daddy Ego" and "Son Petey" playing catch with a ball of energy. It's supposed to make you go Awww.... (I went "Aw, shit, I could've hit the concession stand.")

So, now it's a movie for kids. If you wanted an adult movie, go back and see Logan again or wait for the next Deadpool.

Yeah, it's a family sorta movie. So what...it's still good. I'd have to rewatch Mega-Mind to see if it's as good as that...because THAT is really the best "superhero movie". But, it may be apples and oranges since this is more space adventure and not superhero.

Monker wrote:And, "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" To me, that was taken directly from Farscape - and Farscape did it better.

I don't doubt that for one second. It was so ham-fisted in GOTG2, I wanted a Reuben (because I'm not into ham).

One-dimensional? Did somebody tell you that? Because the following persons disagree with you, and they're all creators who have worked on Batman:

No, I am talking specifically about Batman in BvS. He is EXTREMELY one-dimensional.

But wait, why are you contradicting yourself by saying Batman is one-dimensional? A one-dimensional character wouldn't need to be reintroduced into the DCEU. You know, the way you said he needed to be, because audiences don't know "this" Batman, because he must be green and ride an orange camel, while the guy from the Nolan movies wore a black suit and drove something called the Tumbler.

The Batman in BvS is old and grumpy,. He tortures, branding people and sends them to jail to die. Even Alfred was disturbed by it. And, there is hardly any character development into how he became that way. That is the very definition of a one dimensional character.

They could have done a solo Batman movie where he started as the Batman we knew from Nolan but by the end enough events happened where he became this disturbed old guy in a bat suit. Instead, we just have to believe it is because Superman is an alien who can destroy the world, and it was all stopped because of Martha. Dude, it's just lame.

In the case of GotG, we have Peter Quill who has had both his father and his adoptive father die...and his father killed his mother. That is one fucked up situation. In Vol 3, he has to rise above all of that and become something more, and without the god powers inherited from Ego (unless he finds something lingered). BTW, that is all symbolized by the destruction of his Walkman - his last real connection to his mother. That is awesome story telling by Gunn.

Monker wrote: IMO, a lot of that is a backlash against DC fans talking down Marvel films. It did not matter if I went to a YouTube of the latest trailer or review, or a web review that allowed comments. There were ALWAYS DC fans there saying exactly what you do - that the consensus is blah, blah, blah and so it is not as good as the first. To me, it seems like both sides have groups of "fans" talking smack and trying to boost and lower ratings depending on what side they are on.

Dude, welcome to the damn internet! Where the hell have you been lately? Youtube, comment sections, FB comments and other areas's regarding basically anything have jackass's with keyboards spitting fire! Of course there are split fanbase's, but it just so happens that Marvel fans have cult-like personalities and smother every DC smear campaign they can get sniff out. Say you dislike a wonderful, adventurous, laugh out loud charming and seducing Marvel film, and all hell breaks loose (Point being, v's GoTG2 review. You took his review so personally that you couldn't help but bring out the credentials of what Marvel has achieved to bury v's review rather than just accepting that he didn't like a the damn film!) Say you dislike a DC film, everyone laughs at it, even beforehand. The internet is designed to accelerate the bias in us all, especially with clickbaiting techniques that register emotional outbursts but Marvel properties are protected by some outlets while clickbaiters have proved that any vile flung at the DCEU brings in the most clicks.

"Suck" is such a lame generic critique. But, if that is what you want to believe, fine - believe it.

Bro, you literally JUST said this:

"And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform."

Don't be a fuckface!

I saw CA:CW the weekend it was released....just as I did both GotG movies.

Did you see BvS yet?

Yes, it does. You celebrate such things for DC but you refuse to acknowledge that Marvel is doing it better. GotG is a worldwide phenomenon while something like Suicide Squad is just a movie that had some success with it.

Nope. Still has nothing to do with v's thoughts on GoTG2, no matter how bad you want it to be.

And, there you go. Jealousy.

Were you the "I know what you are but what am I" 3rd grade champion or some shit? For real, v is without a doubt the most well-rounded comic book/movie fan here. He has deep knowledge in not only the source material, but has fairly stated his love or hate for both studio's CBM's. No matter how bad you want to talk shit over BvS or the DCEU, they have a legion of fans and for some reason, that bothers Marvelites.

So what? The intro was basically a parody of the intro to the first movie. Yeah, turned up to 11...but hilarious and perfect.

Perfect? DOUBT IT.

The Batman in BvS is old and grumpy,. He tortures, branding people and sends them to jail to die. Even Alfred was disturbed by it. And, there is hardly any character development into how he became that way. That is the very definition of a one dimensional character.

There's plenty of Bruce's arc in BvS that explains why the way he is. Visually and subtly. Did you see it, or are you afraid there's not enough cereal on the spoon?

They could have done a solo Batman movie where he started as the Batman we knew from Nolan but by the end enough events happened where he became this disturbed old guy in a bat suit.

Instead, we just have to believe it is because Superman is an alien who can destroy the world, and it was all stopped because of Martha. Dude, it's just lame.

The Martha scene could have been handled better, but still..nope. There's a ton of great context in the scene that reflects back to the source material and why Batman thinks that way he does in the context of the film. The name is used as a trigger, not a result.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:Dude, welcome to the damn internet! Where the hell have you been lately? Youtube, comment sections, FB comments and other areas's regarding basically anything have jackass's with keyboards spitting fire! Of course there are split fanbase's, but it just so happens that Marvel fans have cult-like personalities and smother every DC smear campaign they can get sniff out. Say you dislike a wonderful, adventurous, laugh out loud charming and seducing Marvel film, and all hell breaks loose (Point being, v's GoTG2 review. You took his review so personally that you couldn't help but bring out the credentials of what Marvel has achieved to bury v's review rather than just accepting that he didn't like a the damn film!) Say you dislike a DC film, everyone laughs at it, even beforehand. The internet is designed to accelerate the bias in us all, especially with clickbaiting techniques that register emotional outbursts but Marvel properties are protected by some outlets while clickbaiters have proved that any vile flung at the DCEU brings in the most clicks.

No...I'm not talking about 400lb person typing opinions from his couch. I am saying it SEEMS there are organized efforts by BOTH sides in an attempt do drive the consensus opinion in their biased direction. It's like the old days when there would be polls for the best singer and people would post to go to the page and vote Perry on top. I guess the HOF poll was somewhat like that. It SEEMS like DC has it's fan page where people are saying, "Here is a link to where we need to post our opinions to." and Marvel is doing the same thing.

"Suck" is such a lame generic critique. But, if that is what you want to believe, fine - believe it.

Bro, you literally JUST said this:

"And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform."

Don't be a fuckface!

Yeah, so? I said "But, if that is what you want to believe, fine - believe it.." Are you going to do the same?

I saw CA:CW the weekend it was released....just as I did both GotG movies.

Did you see BvS yet?

I saw it free on HBO when I got a free trial to watch the RRHOF ceremony.

Yes, it does. You celebrate such things for DC but you refuse to acknowledge that Marvel is doing it better. GotG is a worldwide phenomenon while something like Suicide Squad is just a movie that had some success with it.

Nope. Still has nothing to do with v's thoughts on GoTG2, no matter how bad you want it to be.

I am saying those opinions are coming from a very biased POV and full of jealousy of Marvel's success.

Were you the "I know what you are but what am I" 3rd grade champion or some shit? For real, v is without a doubt the most well-rounded comic book/movie fan here. He has deep knowledge in not only the source material, but has fairly stated his love or hate for both studio's CBM's. No matter how bad you want to talk shit over BvS or the DCEU, they have a legion of fans and for some reason, that bothers Marvelites.

I think I already admitted that the DC movies are catering to the DC comic book base. Marvel's fan base is far beyond the comic books.

So what? The intro was basically a parody of the intro to the first movie. Yeah, turned up to 11...but hilarious and perfect.

Perfect? DOUBT IT.

Yes, it was. Baby Groot was a major reason Vol 2 was being looked forward to by so many people. So, starting off with that scene was a perfect way to intro into the movie.

They could have done a solo Batman movie where he started as the Batman we knew from Nolan but by the end enough events happened where he became this disturbed old guy in a bat suit.

Sorry, but they could have. Since DC seems to like "Lethal Weapon", they could have done scenes of "I'm getting too old for this shit..." as he was battling "Whoever". Then, towards the end had the scenes from the Zod fight and the Wayne building...maybe killing Robin, or another character that is in the movie who Bruce is close to. So, the entire arc of the movie being Batman starting out as this experienced but reluctant vigilante and having that poked and prodded by the villan, culminating with a true loss when the Wayne building was destroyed. So, when the movie was over, Batman ends up being scarred and can enter BvS as a grumpy old man...but we knew why in a much deeper way.

They could have taken the last Arkham game and inserted those plot points and had a movie to rival the Nolan movies.

Instead, we just have to believe it is because Superman is an alien who can destroy the world, and it was all stopped because of Martha. Dude, it's just lame.

The Martha scene could have been handled better, but still..nope. There's a ton of great context in the scene that reflects back to the source material and why Batman thinks that way he does in the context of the film. The name is used as a trigger, not a result.

[/quote]

First of all, as I have said, I should not have to read the comics to understand the movie. The fact that you even bring it up is proof enough that the movie failed to do it's job. I think everybody understands the Martha scene from Superman's POV. But, Batman's reaction was inexplicable and shows how one dimensional his character is in the entire film. It is made fun of because nowhere in the movie is there any indication of how close Batman was to his mother. No where in the movie does Batman show how much he misses his mom or even that she was important to him at all. Superman had an entire movie prior to this that explained his closeness to his family. So, the "trigger" doesn't work ...it's a "WTF?" moment.

Back to Guardians....NONE of these issues exist in Vol 2. V doesn't like how the movie is more family oriented than BvS. That's really all I get out of it. Vol 2 is a movie designed to further develop the characters and set up Vol 3.

verslibre wrote:It wasn't a 90 on RT. It was 100%. One hundred, baby. And I don't get that, either. People are clearly afraid to talk down Marvel. Proof: all the IMDb reviews that exclaim: Better than the first! Amazing! Marvel does it again! Gunn is the Messiah! And so on. It's ridiculous.

IMO, a lot of that is a backlash against DC fans talking down Marvel films. It did not matter if I went to a YouTube of the latest trailer or review, or a web review that allowed comments. There were ALWAYS DC fans there saying exactly what you do - that the consensus is blah, blah, blah and so it is not as good as the first. To me, it seems like both sides have groups of "fans" talking smack and trying to boost and lower ratings depending on what side they are on.

What are you talking about? They're not propping up Guardians 2 as some kind of backlash. They're just waving another MCU production through over the tarmac because it's moronic entertainment engineered to satisfy their immediate thirst for something new without providing anything meaty. Empty calories.

The "not as good as the first" comments weren't coming from DCEU fans...but from MARVEL fans!

Monker wrote:

verslibre wrote: I went in with a completely open mind, and the movie sucked.

"Suck" is such a lame generic critique. But, if that is what you want to believe, fine - believe it.

Which is why I elaborated in my review. You saw my remarks, right? It sucked, and I said why. I didn't type "sucky-wucky stinky poo" and close the browser. Put that goalpost down!

Monker wrote:

veslibre wrote: Then I watched the first GOTG again. Now I like that movie, warts and all. Gunn tried to build a bigger bonfire and burned the whole joint down. Ronan shouldn't be a bigger threat than something like Ego (and technically he is not), but he was the source of much pain and anguish to those who crossed him. Ego came off like an entity trying on shoes and finally finding the pair that fit.

You are totally missing the point in both movies, or at least Vol 2. Ronan was the stereotypical villain in an origin story...both Starlord and the Guardians themselves. That is the role he played.

Yeah, Ronan was a traditional heavy, the kind you have to defeat by brute force. So what? That's exactly what happened with Ego in the end, anyway. It devolved into a ridiculous cartoon battle for kids. Ego could have ended that shit at any time, were he really Ego. But Gunn wrote a cartoon battle. Because, you know, stupid sells.

Monker wrote:Ego was not just a simple villain . He was Peter Quill's dad...and that is why he was there. It brought a depth of character to Quill that the first movie did not. The same with Gamora and Nebula. It's one thing to be sisters who hate each other. It's another to explain the deep rooted hatred Nebula feels and let Gamora react to it. The same with Drax and Mantis. When Drax tells the story of his wife and Mantis touches him and feels his pain and cries...that deepens the understanding of Drax and provides a connection between Mantis and Drax that is deeper than what Drax has with any of the others.

Oh, stop. That was all surface-level artificial pseudo-drama. Gamora's trying to gun down Nebula and then they're allies. Just like that. All the deep-seated loathing dissipated like fart vapor. Drax warming up to Mantis is artificial BS to offset the stupid guffawing he erupts into periodically. It was lame. Ego was stupid. An entire bit about the guy having a flesh-and-blood cock — initiated, of course, by Drax. That kind of crap sucks all the tension of out any given scene. You can't say Gunn's toilet sense of humor is what makes the movie great. That's a flaccid argument. (See what I did there?)

Monker wrote:So, Ego was there to add to Starlord's character - not just to be a bad guy. They throw the ball back and forth. They talk about girls. They do the "dad" things that Starlord says he missed. All to make it easier for Starlord to follow Ego. But, in the end, Yondu is his "daddy."

No, it made Ego, an extraterrestrial intelligence, look and talk like a grifter from Vegas. He struts, then walks over and takes a piss. Later, Drax asks him if he's got a penis. So right there you have a goof in the narrative. Kurt was Ego In Name Only. Here is Ego's power set from the comics:

Ego is exceptionally intelligent, although as its name suggests, it harbors an extreme superiority complex and can be emotional if thwarted. For a while Ego is propelled through space via the engine Galactus implanted on it and can travel at faster than light speeds (for unknown reasons, Ego is unable to remove the powerful propulsion unit placed at its south pole), however later this device is removed.[23] Ego has total control over its entire mass down to the molecular level; it often shapes its surface into the appearance of a gigantic face to address powerful beings, and can also shape its terrain to suit the circumstances. It is able to use its own substance to extrude tentacles, organic sensors, plant-like growth, and to create humanoid vessels for its consciousness. It can shape its surface to appear as a dead inhospitable world, or into an idyllic, lush green paradise to lure unwary space travelers to its surface, whom it promptly consumes. Ego possesses various internal features analogous to a living organism, such as gigantic tunnels that have been compared to arteries, and a gigantic brain-like organ deep below its surface. It can heat up its internal temperature to destroy beings inside it. Ego possesses both digestive organs, which it uses when absorbing living beings, and an immune system with which to create powerful antibodies to destroy beings which resist absorption. [24]

It also possesses vast psionic abilities, and can project blasts powerful enough to destroy other worlds. [25] He was able to read Thor's mind during his first appearance and scan his biological structure.

He could've smoked 'em at any time. Or not, because the MCU dumbed down another villain. (Dormammu, anyone?)

Monker wrote:The entire story is about family, and loss of family. And, it is about growing the characters, not just saving the galaxy a second time.

No development for Gamora. Quill gets the swait & bitch. I mean the bait & switch. We're supposed to cry for Yondu. (Merle Dixon's demise was heavier.) Drax is an even bigger idiot. Groot grows (without Miracle-Gro). Yeah, that's some character growth. Whew. Fasten your seatbelt. And let's not forget Quill's offer to show Ayesha his wiener, i.e. how to do the nasty old-school. (Star Trek: First Contact did that bit better, and it was far less in-your-face.)

Monker wrote:

verslibre wrote:Which has nothing to do with my thoughts on GotGVol2.

Yes, it does. You celebrate such things for DC but you refuse to acknowledge that Marvel is doing it better. GotG is a worldwide phenomenon while something like Suicide Squad is just a movie that had some success with it.

Sorry, pal. You want to go on a tangent? Fine. SKWAD became its own phenomenon. Did you not see elsewhere in this thread where we talked about what a hit it was in the UK...Mexico...Brazil? If it had opened in China, it would have approached if not matched BvS' gross. That's the magic of the Batman Rogues' Gallery, dude. That's Harley & Joker for you. It became some kind of mantra for the Marvelites after it became apparent was no flop, as they had prayed for, but a hugely successful film. ("How can such a 'bad' movie make so much?" and on and on. Well, shit, just look at Guardians 2, and you have your answer!!!) BvS got so much shit for its CG-derived environments, and that's all I saw in the Ragnarok trailer. That's all saw in Guardians. Hypocrisy.

Monker wrote:And, there you go. Jealousy.

Put down the goalpost. So now it's studio vs. studio, not franchise vs. franchise? Pick one and stick with it. Everyone knows Star Wars movies make more than anything else.

Monker wrote:

verslibre wrote:Now that movie grossed over 2B, but that doesn't mean it's an extraordinary film.

NO, it means that George Lucas dreamed up characters and told a story in such a way that drew people into a fandom that has lasted multiple generations now. It's an extraordinary character driven STORY.

^^Tangential veering again.^^ We're not talking about the mythos, we're talking about one specific film, namely one that has been argued ad infinitum that it is a recycling of an older, better movie. Btw, George had nothing to do with TFA. Even his proposed story was jettisoned in favor of a new arc that would feel very familiar and suck in new/old viewers who love to stroke themselves with lightsabers. There's nothing extraordinary about TFA save that outlandish StarKiller weapon and the updated VFX and sound.

Monker wrote:

verslibre wrote:Rogue One didn't make as much because the only major Jedi presence in it is Vader, but the One Big [Fan Service] Moment at the end > all the Fan Service in TFA combined.

You are now just guessing and inventing facts. Rogue One was the SECOND of the new SW films. Rogue One did not have Han, Leia and Luke reunited in the same film. Rogue One is not part of the new trilogy. Rogue One did well despite all of these things being against it, IMO.

Well...DUH!!!!!!

You need to pay attention to what I'm saying. Rogue One has NO JEDI LEAD. It was a given that it would NOT make as MUCH as The Force Awakens. (They even did major reshoots because Disney wasn't satisfied with Gareth's early cut.) THAT SAID, it is, IMHO, the BETTER movie. NOWHERE did I say it is part of the current trilogy. (Episode VIII: The Last Jedi arrives in December.) What I said is that that one particular "fan service" moment at the END of Rogue One OUTDOES all the fan service bullshit in TFA.

Got it?

Monker wrote:

verslibre wrote:Except way before that, Gamora tells Mantis she's not ugly, after Mantis tells her she's ugly because Drax told her so. Again: did you watch the movie, or are you just reading up on stuff?

Yes, Gamora did say that....and it is probably something that could have been cut.

Wrong. Gamora would have looked like a complete asshole to all the li'l kids in the audience had she come out and not said a single word after Mantis told her that. Especially with their both being women. You know...sisterhood and all that.

Monker wrote:So what? The intro was basically a parody of the intro to the first movie. Yeah, turned up to 11...but hilarious and perfect.

A movie should never parody itself, unless it's Spaceballs.

Monker wrote:So, now it's a movie for kids.

It sure is. It's not tonally similar to its predecessor, is it?

Monker wrote:They could have done a solo Batman movie where he started as the Batman we knew from Nolan but by the end enough events happened where he became this disturbed old guy in a bat suit.

Except you forgot that "Nolan's" Batman retired at the end of Rises, and John Blake inherited the cowl. That storyline would not have connected with the DCEU. Nor would the Batman of the Nolan trilogy have been able to hang with other members of the League in the same way. Watch the warehouse takedown again. THAT is the Batman we need NOW.

Monker wrote:In the case of GotG, we have Peter Quill who has had both his father and his adoptive father die...and his father killed his mother. That is one fucked up situation. In Vol 3, he has to rise above all of that and become something more, and without the god powers inherited from Ego (unless he finds something lingered). BTW, that is all symbolized by the destruction of his Walkman - his last real connection to his mother. That is awesome story telling by Gunn.

*Gag*

"Yo, dude. I put a tumor in your mom's head. Because she meant so much to me, I wanted her death to be an unusually cruel and painful one."

"WHY???"

"Because I'm really Ego In Name Only, dumbass! Any other ETI would've just snuffed your mom like a candlestick. But I was (re)written by a human who didn't create me!"